Tír Na HiFi

Hi Aleg,

I think, meanwhile it's a kind of common sense using the term "digital sound" means a sound with digital artefacts (also called jittery), that tends to an edgy, sharp, harsh, artificial sound signature with less musical flow. Kind regards - Fujak

Fujak wrote:Hi Aleg,

I think, meanwhile it's a kind of common sense using the term "digital sound" means a sound with digital artefacts (also called jittery), that tends to an edgy, sharp, harsh, artificial sound signature with less musical flow. Kind regards - Fujak

Hi Fujak

Thank you for putting some sound quality aspects to the term.
But do you recognise this in current 3.72/8.91 MQn?
Or is one man's harshness other man's detail and accuracy, and is it still subjective and a matter of preference?

I also remember written that less jitter is heared as more detail, while some say more detail is considered to be due to noise effects.

Cheers
Aleg

Aleg wrote:

Fujak wrote:Hi Aleg,

I think, meanwhile it's a kind of common sense using the term "digital sound" means a sound with digital artefacts (also called jittery), that tends to an edgy, sharp, harsh, artificial sound signature with less musical flow. Kind regards - Fujak

Hi Fujak

Thank you for putting some sound quality aspects to the term.
But do you recognise this in current 3.72/8.91 MQn?
Or is one man's harshness other man's detail and accuracy, and is it still subjective and a matter of preference?

I also remember written that less jitter is heared as more detail, while some say more detail is considered to be due to noise effects.

Cheers
Aleg

we could be in the same room listening to the same system and disagree on the sq, so it's best just to report what you hear.

sbgk wrote:

Aleg wrote:

Fujak wrote:Hi Aleg,

I think, meanwhile it's a kind of common sense using the term "digital sound" means a sound with digital artefacts (also called jittery), that tends to an edgy, sharp, harsh, artificial sound signature with less musical flow. Kind regards - Fujak

Hi Fujak

Thank you for putting some sound quality aspects to the term.
But do you recognise this in current 3.72/8.91 MQn?
Or is one man's harshness other man's detail and accuracy, and is it still subjective and a matter of preference?

I also remember written that less jitter is heared as more detail, while some say more detail is considered to be due to noise effects.

Cheers
Aleg

we could be in the same room listening to the same system and disagree on the sq, so it's best just to report what you hear.

Sbgk

Completely agree, that's why I asked you to explain what you hear when you say something sounds 'more digital', because for me that doesn't create a clear picture what it is that you don't like. Precisely so I could verify with myself if what you don't like, is the the same for me.

The more so, because you are trying to develop that aspect out of the music MQn is creating.

Though you should be aware that what you don't like might be created by other components in your playback chain, from devices to power supplies and cables, even though you can influence it by software, sometimes possibly with adverse effects in other playback chains.

Cheers

Aleg

Sbgk

Completely agree, that's why I asked you to explain what you hear when you say something sounds 'more digital', because for me that doesn't create a clear picture what it is that you don't like. Precisely so I could verify with myself if what you don't like, is the the same for me.

The more so, because you are trying to develop that aspect out of the music MQn is creating.

Though you should be aware that what you don't like might be created by other components in your playback chain, from devices to power supplies and cables, even though you can influence it by software, sometimes possibly with adverse effects in other playback chains.

I'm trying to get closer to the recorded signal, not trying to remove any aspect, just removing code that affects sq, that's why feedback is useful.

as you have a perfect system it's useful to get your feedback in particular

sbgk wrote:...

as you have a perfect system it's useful to get your feedback in particular

Thank you for the compliment you think my system is perfect.
I consider it to be just different from your's.

Cheers

Aleg

Aleg wrote:Hi Fujak

Thank you for putting some sound quality aspects to the term.
But do you recognise this in current 3.72/8.91 MQn?
Or is one man's harshness other man's detail and accuracy, and is it still subjective and a matter of preference?

I also remember written that less jitter is heared as more detail, while some say more detail is considered to be due to noise effects.

Cheers
Aleg

Hi Aleg,

in my ears the combination 3.72/8.91 is by far the best sounding team among all other (and former) versions of MQnPlay and MQnControl.
Regarding the other question: Sometimes you may get the illusion of high resolving signature which is in reality harshness. The proof is longtime listening:
The impression of a detailed and high resolving performance based on low jitter is listenable over a long time; music emotionally involves you - and sometimes you might feel a need for increasing volume level.
In the opposite: The impression of a detailed and highresolving signature based on harshness and edgyness is unlistenable over a long time; you will become stressed and exhausted and you will feel an need for decreasing volume level. That I would call "digital sound".

Kind regards - Fujak

Fujak wrote:

Aleg wrote:Hi Fujak

Thank you for putting some sound quality aspects to the term.
But do you recognise this in current 3.72/8.91 MQn?
Or is one man's harshness other man's detail and accuracy, and is it still subjective and a matter of preference?

I also remember written that less jitter is heared as more detail, while some say more detail is considered to be due to noise effects.

Cheers
Aleg

Hi Aleg,

in my ears the combination 3.72/8.91 is by far the best sounding team among all other (and former) versions of MQnPlay and MQnControl.
Regarding the other question: Sometimes you may get the illusion of high resolving signature which is in reality harshness. The proof is longtime listening:
The impression of a detailed and high resolving performance based on low jitter is listenable over a long time; music emotionally involves you - and sometimes you might feel a need for increasing volume level.
In the opposite: The impression of a detailed and highresolving signature based on harshness and edgyness is unlistenable over a long time; you will become stressed and exhausted and you will feel an need for decreasing volume level. That I would call "digital sound".

Kind regards - Fujak

Agree re 3.72/8.91 Normal - it is stunningly good. Can't wait to try it on hi-res. [Linn 24 days of Christmas free hi-res downloads].

Also very well expressed on good/bad sound qualities, which I totally agree with.

I agree. 3.72/8.91 avx2 is the best KS so far. Untill this one I used 5.14 avx2 Waspi. Now it is hard to say which one I like more ...

@Fujak

I like your description over sound quality. I experienced and observed the similar. If everything is "good" then in long term listing I found my self wanting listening more and wanting to turn the volume up, whereas when something is "wrong" I tend to do otherwise.